跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.226.244.254) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/01 04:07
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:許涵清
論文名稱:共同目擊者間之記憶趨同效應
論文名稱(外文):Memory Conformity of Co-witnesses
指導教授:李執中李執中引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:中央警察大學
系所名稱:刑事警察研究所
學門:軍警國防安全學門
學類:警政學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
中文關鍵詞:共同目擊者記憶趨同
外文關鍵詞:co-witnessmemoryconformity
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:423
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
目擊者對於犯罪事件的記憶可能受到來自於共同目擊者的干擾而改變,若目擊者們在事件過後曾共同討論關於犯罪事件發生的經過及細節,則此一討論過程將可能影響目擊者對於犯罪事件的記憶,使其在嗣後的回憶之中增添些許來自於共同目擊者的描述但事實上自己並未看見的訊息,此現象一般稱為「記憶趨同效應」。本研究經由實驗結果顯示,相較於沒有共同目擊者的受試者,有共同目擊者的受試者在經過和共同目擊者就犯罪事件的討論後,出現顯著的記憶趨同效應;若以目擊者和共同目擊者間之熟識程度來區分,則可發現在出現趨同效應的人數比例上,共同目擊者為陌生人之受試者(85%)顯著大於共同目擊者為熟識之人的受試者(62.5%);亦即當共同目擊者為陌生人時,有較高比例的受試者在回憶犯罪事件內容時會受到其陌生共同目擊者之影響;此外,受試者是否察覺其和共同目擊者所目擊之犯罪事件有所差異,和受試者是否出現趨同效應間具有關聯性,察覺程度較高者,較不容易出現趨同效應。
ii
Abstract
Memory of witnesses toward criminal events may be changed via
interference from co-witnesses. If witnesses have discussed the course and
details of the occurrence of the event together after witnessing a criminal event,
this process may influence the memory of witnesses toward the criminal event,
and add some information which has not been seen by themselves, but by
co-witnesses, in the later recollection. This effect is known as “memory
conformity effects.” The current study showed through experiments that,
comparing with participants without co-witnesses, participants with
co-witnesses showed significant memory conformity effects after discussing
the criminal event with co-witnesses. If participants were distinguished into
two groups by different social relationship, results indicated that participants
with strange co-witnesses (85%) showed significantly more memory
conformity effects than participants with acquainted co-witnesses (62.5%) on
proportion of the number. It means when a co-witness is a stranger, participants
of higher rate will be influenced by the strange co-witnesses during the recall
of the event. In addition, whether participants are aware of the differences
between the events they and their co-witnesses have seen or not, are associated
with the emergence of memory conformity effects. The higher the degree of
awareness is, the lower the conformity effects occur.
目錄

摘 要 i
Abstract ii
目錄 iii
圖目錄 v
表目錄 vi

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究目的 1
第二節 研究問題 4
第三節 名詞定義 4

第二章 文獻探討 7
第一節 目擊者的錯誤記憶 7
第二節 影響目擊者記憶的錯誤訊息 9
第三節 共同目擊者間的記憶趨同效應 17
第四節 不同社會關係對於記憶趨同效應之影響 23

第三章 研究方法 29
第一節 研究假設 29
第二節 研究設計與實驗流程 29
第三節 研究樣本 33
第四節 研究工具 33
第五節 研究步驟 36
第六節 統計方法 41

第四章 研究結果 43
第一節 記憶內容正確率 44
第二節 趨同現象出現比例 49
第三節 有共同目擊者 VS. 無共同目擊者 53
第四節 熟識的共同目擊者 VS. 陌生的共同目擊者 59

第五章 討論與建議 68
第一節 討論 68
第二節 研究限制 77
第三節 建議 80
第四節 結語 81

參考文獻 82
附錄一、A角度影片關鍵項目範例 89
附錄二、B角度影片關鍵項目範例 90
附錄三、圖片比較題目範例 91
附錄四、犯罪事件問答卷 92
附錄五、數獨遊戲 93
附錄六、犯罪事件測驗卷 94
附錄七、性別變項之比較 97


圖目錄
圖2-3-1 Wright, Self, &; Justice(2000)關於記憶趨同效應的實驗流程 19
圖2-3-2 Gabbert, Memon, &; Allan (2003)關於記憶趨同效應的實驗流程 21
圖2-4-1 Hope, Ost, Gabbert, Healey, &; Lenton(2008)記憶趨同效應的實驗流程 26
圖3-2-1 實驗流程 32


表目錄
表2-3-1 Wright, Self, &; Justice(2000)關於記憶趨同效應的實驗結果 20
表2-3-2 Gabbert, Memon, &; Allan (2003)關於記憶趨同效應的實驗結果 22
表2-4-1 Hope, Ost, Gabbert, Healey, &; Lenton(2008)記憶趨同效應的實驗結果 28
表3-2-1 實驗組與控制組之實驗設計 30
表3-2-2 熟識組與陌生組之實驗設計 30
表3-2-3 A、B角度影片可見之一般項目與關鍵項目 31
表4-1-1 18個一般項目正確人數及百分比 44
表4-1-2 A角度可見之4個關鍵項目正確與錯誤人數及百分比 47
表4-1-3 B角度可見之4個關鍵項目正確與錯誤人數及百分比 48
表4-2-1 各組出現趨同現象人數之分布 50
表4-2-2 熟識組及陌生組出現趨同現象個數之分布 51
表4-2-3 關鍵項目之受影響人數與比例 51
表4-3-1 實驗組及控制組中關鍵項目之看見及受影響人數與比例 54
表4-3-2 實驗組與控制組關鍵項目正確得分人數分布情形及平均得分之比較 56
表4-3-3 實驗組與控制組趨同得分人數分布情形及平均趨同得分之比較 57
表4-3-4 實驗組與控制組之一般項目正確得分人數分布情形及平均得分之比較 58
表4-4-1 熟識組與陌生組關鍵項目正確得分人數分布情形及平均分數之比較 60
表4-4-2 熟識組與陌生組趨同得分人數分布情形及平均趨同得分之比較 61
表4-4-3 實驗組察覺程度人數分布情形及百分比 62
表4-4-4 高低察覺程度新分組中是否出現趨同現象之人數分布與百分比 63
表4-4-5 高低察覺程度新分組之總人數分布與平均趨同得分 63
表4-4-6 熟識組與陌生組察覺程度人數分布情形及平均數 64
表4-4-7 不同熟識程度及不同察覺程度之人數與趨同得分交叉表 65
表4-4-8 熟識組與陌生組之一般項目正確得分人數分布情形及平均得分之比較 66
Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., &; Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1063-1087.

Anderson, M. C., &; Green, C. (2001). Suppressing unwanted memories by executive control. Nature, 410, 366-369.

Anderson, M. C., Ochsner, K. N., Kuhl, B., Cooper, J., Robertson, E., Gabrieli, S. W., Glover, G. H., &; Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2004). Neural systems underlying the suppression of unwanted memories. Science, 303, 232-235.

Andersson J. (2001). Net effect of memory collaboration: How is collaboration affected by factors such as friendship, gender and age? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 367-375.

Barnier, A. J., Hung, L., &; Conway, M. A. (2004). Retrieval- induced forgetting of emotional and unemotional autobiographical memories. Cognition and emotion, 18, 457-477.

Betz, A. L., Skowronski, J.J., &; Ostrom, T.M. (1996). Shared realities: Social influence and stimulus memory. Social Cognition, 14, 113-140.

Bless, H., Strack, F., &; Walther, E. (2001). Memory as a target of social influence? Memory distortions as a function of social influence and meta-cognitive knowledge. In J.P. Forgas, &; K.D. Williams (Eds.), Social Influence: Direct and indirect processes, 167-189. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Ceci, S.J., Ross, D.F., &; Toglia, M.P. (1987). Suggestibility of children’s memory: Psycholegal implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 38-49.

Christianson, S., &; Bylin, S. (1999). Does simulating amnesia mediate genuine forgetting for a crime event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 495-511.

Christopher R. Agnew, Paul A. M. Van Lange, Caryl E. Rusbult, &; Christopher A. Langston. (1998). Cognitive Interdependence: Commitment and the Mental Representation of Close Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939-954.

Ciranni, M. A., &; Shimamura, A. P. (1999). Retrieval-induced forgetting in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1403-1414.

Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., &; McEwen, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science : Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. NIH Research Report: US Department of Justice.

Crombag, H. F. M., Wagenaar, W. A., and van Koppen, P. J. (1996). Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 95-104.

Davis, D., &; Follette, W. C. (2004). Jurors CAN be selected: Non information, misinformation and their strategic use for jury selection. In W. T. O’Donohue, E. Levensky (Eds.) Handbook of forensic psychology, 781-805. New York, Elsevier; Academic Press.

Dawes, R. M. (1991). Biases of retrospection. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 1, 25-28.

Deffenbacher, K. A. (1980). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Can we infer anything about their relationship? Law and Human Behavior, 4, 243-260.

Dudukovic, N.M., Marsh, E.J., &; Tversky, B. (2004). Telling a story or telling it straight: The effects of entertaining versus accurate retellings on memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 125-143.

Eakin, D. K., Schreiber, T.A., &; Sergent-Marshall, S. (2003). Misinformation effects in eyewitness memory: The presence and absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and misinformation accessibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 813-825.

Festinger, L. (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.

Fleming, J. H. &; Darley, J. M. (1991). Mixed messages: The multiple audience problem and strategic communication. Social Cognition, 9, 25‐46.

Forgas, J. P., &; East, R. (2003). Affective influences on social judgments and decisions: Implicit and explicit processes. In J. P. Forgas &; K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes, 198-226. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gabbert, F., Memon, A., &; Allan, K. (2003). Memory Conformity: Can eyewitnesses Influence Each Other’s Memories for an Event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 533-543.

Gabbert, F., Memon, A., Allan, K., &; Wright, D.B. (2004). Say it to my face: Examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 215-227.

Gabbert, F., Memon, A., &; Wright, D. B. (2006). Memory conformity: Disentangling the steps towards influence during a discussion, Psychonomic Bulletin &; Review 13, 480-485.

Gabbert, F., Memon, A., &; Wright, D. B. (2007). I saw it for longer than you: The relationship between perceived encoding duration and memory conformity. Acta Psychologica, 124, 319-331.

Hoffman, H. G., Granhag, P. A., Kwong See, S. T., &; Loftus, E. F. (2001). Social influences on reality monitoring decisions. Memory and Cognition, 29, 394-404.

Holtgraves, T. M. (2002). Language as social action: Social psychology and language use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hope, L., Ost, J., Gabbert, F., Healey, S., &; Lenton, E. (2008). “With a little help from my friends…”: The role of co-witness relationship in susceptibility to misinformation. Acta Psychologica, 127, 476-484.

Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., and Sagarin, E. (1996). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful convictionand public policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hyman, I. E. (1994). Conversational remembering: Story recall with a peer versus for an experimenter. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 49–66.

Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., &; Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28.

Klein, K., &; Boals, A. (2001). The relationship of life event stress and working memory capacity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 565-579.

Koutstaal, W., Schacter, D. L., Johnson, M. K., &; Galluccio, L. (1999). Facilitation and impairment of event memory produced by photograph review. Memory &; Cognition, 27, 478-493.

Levi, A. M. (1998). Are defendants guilty if they were chosen in a lineup? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 389-407.

Levine, L. J. (1997). Reconstructing memory for emotions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 165-177.

Lindsay, D. S., Hagen, L., Read, J. D., Wade, K. A., &; Garry, M. (2004). True photographs and false memories. Psychological Science, 15, 149-154.

Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560-572.

Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Loftus, E. F., &; Banaji, M. R. (1989). Memory modification and the role of the media. In V. Gheorghiu, P. Netter, H. J. Eysenck, &; R. Rosenthal (Eds.), Suggestibility: Theory and research, 279-293. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Loftus, E. F., &; Greene, E. (1980). Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 323-334.

Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., &; Messo, J. (1987). Some Facts about “Weapon Focus.” Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1987.

Loftus, E. F., &; Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 86-88.

Luus, C. A. E., &; Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 714-724.

Marsh, E. J., &; Tversky, B. (2004). Spinning the stories of our lives. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 491-503.

Meade, M. L., &; Roediger, H. L., III. (2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory. Memory &; Cognition, 30, 995-1009.

Memon, A., &; Wright, D. B. (1999). The search for John Doe 2: Eyewitness testimony and the Oklahoma bombing. Psychologist, 12, 292-295.

Mineka, S., &; Nugent, K. (1995). Mood-congruent memory biases in anxiety and depression, 173-193. Memory Distortion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pasupathi, M. (2001). The social construction of the personal past and its implications for adult development. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 651-672.

Paterson, H., Chapman, L., &; Kemp, R. (2007). The effects of false memory feedback on susceptibility to co-witness misinformation. Paper accepted for the 3rd International Congress of Psychology and Law, Adelaide, Australia.

Reysen, M. S. (2005). The effects of conformity on recognition judgements. Memory, 13, 87-94.

Salmon, K., &; Pipe, M. E. (2000). Recalling an event one year later: The impact of props, drawing and a prior interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 99-120.

Sedikides, C. (1990). On the covariation of self-focused attention and mood. Unpublished data. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Semin, G. R., &; De Poot, C. J. (1997a). The question-answer paradigm: You might regret not noticing how a question is worded. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 472-480.

Semin, G. R., De Poot, C. J. (1997b). Bringing partiality to light: Question wording and choice as indicators of bias. Social Cognition, 15, 91-106.

Sharman, S. J., Manning, C. G., &; Garry, M. (2005). Explain this: Explaining child¬ pluto behaving badly 659 hood events inflates confidence for those events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 67-74.

Shaw, J. S. III, Bjork, R. A. &; Handal, A. (1995). Retrieval-induced forgetting in an eyewitness-memory paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin &; Review, 2, 249-253.

Skagerberg, E., &; Wright, D. B. (2008). The prevalence of co-witnesses and co-witness discussions in real eyewitnesses. Psychology, Crime &; Law, 14, 513-521.

Tversky, B., &; Marsh, E. J. (2000). Biased retellings of events yield biased memories. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 1-38.

Walther, E., Bless, H., Strack, F., Rachstraw, P., Wagner, D., &; Werth, L. (2002). Conformity effects in memory as a function of group size, dissenters and uncertainty. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 793-810.

Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., &; Lindsay, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688-696.

Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., &; Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440-448.

Wilson, A. E., &; Ross, M. (2003). The identity function of autobiographical memory: Time is on our side. Memory, 11, 137-149.

Wright, D. B., &; Davies, G. M. (1999). Eyewitness testimony. In F. T. Durso, R. S. Nickerson, R. W. Schvaneveldt, S. T. Dumais, D. S. Lindsay, &; M. T. H. Chi (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition , 789-818.

Wright, D. B., &; McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing System and Estimator Variables Using Data from Real Line-Ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.

Wright, D. B., Self, G., &; Justice, C. (2000). Memory conformity: Exploring misinformation effects when presented by another person. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 189-202.

陳旻,2001。女性公務人員性別角色態度、成功恐懼及前程發展關係之研究-以高雄市政府為例。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
電子全文 電子全文(本篇電子全文限研究生所屬學校校內系統及IP範圍內開放)
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top